Role in IT decision-making process:Align Business & IT GoalsCreate IT StrategyDetermine IT NeedsManage Vendor RelationshipsEvaluate/Specify Brands or VendorsOther RoleAuthorize PurchasesNot Involved

Work Phone:

Company:

Company Size:

Industry:

Street Address

City:

Zip/postal code

State/Province:

Country:

Occasionally, we send subscribers special offers from select partners. Would you like to receive these special partner offers via e-mail?YesNo

Your registration with Eweek will include the following free email newsletter(s):News & Views

By submitting your wireless number, you agree that eWEEK, its related properties, and vendor partners providing content you view may contact you using contact center technology. Your consent is not required to view content or use site features.

By clicking on the "Register" button below, I agree that I have carefully read the Terms of Service and the Privacy Policy and I agree to be legally bound by all such terms.

Retailers Whine Over Google's Search Within Search

Every now and then we are treated to a little (OK, a lot) whining from folks who piggyback on top of Google to make money, the long tail of publishers who cling to the hope of high PageRank scores because it affects their earnings.
Now retailers have joined publishers in

Every now and then we are treated to a little (OK, a lot) whining from folks who piggyback on top of Google to make money, the long tail of publishers who cling to the hope of high PageRank scores because it affects their earnings.

So, type in Wikipedia, and you're presented with a search box where you can do a more exact search within Wikipedia.org. As someone who does a lot of these searches, I'd welcome search-within-search for everything.

However, and unfortunately as is usually the case when Google tweaks its search engine, this feature is putting off publishers and retailers because when users conduct these secondary searches, ads for rivals show up in addition to the links.

Further reading

For example, today I entered Best Buy, got the secondary search box, then entered TVs. Not only did I get a link to the Best Buy televisions page but I got a list of sponsored links on the side offering to take me to other TV sellers, including Dell, Costco, Target and NextTag.

Apparently, retailers are upset that Google is selling ads against their brands. But Google is merely providing searches (consumers) choice and other retailers the opportunity to benefit from consumer choice. And people have a problem with that? Are you kidding me? This is called capitalism.

When you open the Saturday circular ad sheets in your weekend newspapers, you usually see pamphlets of ads for Best Buy, Target and Circuit City stacked one on top of the other. The retailers all pay for those ads and it's a level playing field; a little competition is good for the free market.

Publishers and retailers who complain about the ad placement in search-within-search are moaning about being lumped in with the competition, but Google's job is to provide the best search possible and make as much money as possible doing it.

Retailers have plenty of other factors determining their success than worrying over who appears on their search results pages. Would these retailers get upset for having their ads on the same page with a rivals in a print publication? No. Bottom line: If their merchandise is as good and competitively priced as they advertise, then they'll do just fine.

Neither Best Buy, nor any other retailer should have a legitimate quarrel with Google about this, or as Andy Beal from Marketing Pilgrim noted "If I search for YOUR COMPANY and then decide to shop elsewhere–after using a site search for YOUR SITE and seeing an AdWords ad–how strong was my relationship with you in the first place???"

Well said, Andy. And for sites concerned about this, get better site search. Some of these proprietary e-commerce search engines are terrible. If you improve your own site search, Google wouldn't have to come up with a better solution.

And if you don't like it, well, Google has said it will remove it, which is allegedly what Amazon did.

The Times article is nice and balanced, providing comments from Forbes and the Online Publishers Association dismissing the complaints on the second page of the article.

Advertiser Disclosure:
Some of the products that appear on this site are from companies from which QuinStreet receives compensation. This compensation may impact how and where products appear on this site including, for example, the order in which they appear. QuinStreet does not include all companies or all types of products available in the marketplace.